A Dartmouth Review: Interview with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon

As a writer for The Dartmouth Review, I do not claim to be an impartial journalist spreading the unbiased news of the day. When I write, I do so in the form of an argument for a particular point. This is true in some form or another for virtually every piece written in The Dartmouth Review. Unlike the conservative Review, The Dartmouth, through its general “News” coverage, attempts to do more than voice mere “Opinions.” The opinions on The Dartmouth are overwhelmingly to the left (with their occasional mildly conservative token pieces). What’s worse than The D’s skewed opinion section is their “News,” which masquerades as an unbiased source of facts – supposedly not representative of any political perspective. Instead, however, what it tends to provide are articles that suffer from an evident framing bias.

Rather recently, The D published an article that attacks the credibility of one of the Review’s own alumna and current Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights: Ms. Harmeet K. Dhillon. In defense of The Dartmouth Review and our Editor Emerita, I see it as necessary to expose The Dartmouth’s evidently biased journalism and set the record straight on Ms. Dhillon’s past as an accomplished civil rights attorney and on her current job in the Department of Justice. I encourage readers to catch a glimpse of The Dartmouth’s article, published on August 8^th. To get to the bottom of the truth, last month I had the pleasure of meeting with Ms. Dhillon in Washington, hoping to help show that conservatives and even members of The Dartmouth Review do, in fact, care about civil rights – albeit many of those that the left sees as irrelevant to promoting their agenda. 

While The Dartmouth’s article on Ms. Dhillon seemed to almost exclusively focus on a general 1980s history of The Dartmouth Review, I will only dedicate a small portion of this article to examining the four relatively insignificant years of Dhillon’s life at Dartmouth. She arrived here in the fall of 1985. According to Dhillon, she “felt like joining [The Dartmouth Review] would be a good outlet for [her]conservative and writing interests… She remembers being “really excited about the level of intellectual stimulation [she] experienced among students… to have access to the best and brightest ideas…” and to have access to “a company of like-minded individuals.” It is true that The Review during the 80s had a “juvenile aspect to it… sometimes in bad taste…”. However, according to Dhillon, “the publication of provocative, different viewpoints is a part of journalism.” And, what that ultimately accomplishes is “making people think.” Just as The Review participated in satirical pieces, CNN’s own “Jake Tapper was the cartoonist of The Dartmouth… He had some unflattering cartoons of me [Ms. Dhillon]… it was kind of hurtful at the time… but that’s part of journalism.” And it was.

In its brief examination of Dhillon’s past as a civil rights attorney, The Dartmouth emphasizes her role as legal counsel for President Trump during the 2020 challenges to election results. This is a great way to distract readers from seeing Ms. Dhillon as an accomplished attorney who has done much more for civil rights than is being fairly portrayed. While Dhillon initially joined the 2020 litigation on behalf of the Trump campaign, her focus shifted to prospective election-integrity reforms by spring of 2021. In reality, Dhillon has had a lengthy and influential career in law that began after attending UVA and graduating with her Juris Doctor in 1993. Dhillon has spent her career defending a variety of civil rights. Some of her most passionate and influential work has involved defending the First Amendment’s right to free speech and practice of religion. Even before she graduated from UVA, Dhillon worked as a law clerk at the Center for Individual Rights in 1991. During her brief tenure, the “CIR launched a vigorous defense of speech rights of students and professors on college and university campuses, and various speech codes were invalidated as a result of CIR intervention. These major victories in defense of academic freedom were won in the federal courts of appeals” (Center for Individual Rights). 

Over the years, her firms (Dhillon Law Group and Dhillon & Smith) as well as her non-profit, (the Center for American Liberty) have worked in various high-profile cases to protect free speech, both on campus and in the workplace. This does not mean free speech for some, but for all, regardless of political ideology. For example, in 2011, KPFA, a left-leaning Berkeley radio station was roiled by layoffs and a disputed staff election. Dhillon’s partnership at the time stepped in to represent several of its hosts and volunteers who were affected. It pressed management to treat employees fairly in the election process and fought to ensure their voices could not be silenced, reaching the same audiences as the management’s. She took on the case to the surprise of many, defending free speech and fairness for clients far outside her political camp. Her clients ultimately prevailed, with a court ordering that their chosen staff representative be seated — a clear affirmation of the free-speech and fairness principles she defended.

In 2017, Dhillon’s firm fought against UC Berkeley’s mandatory and unjustly expensive security fees for high-profile speakers. It resulted in policy changes, fees awarded to the impacted groups, and a win for “all students,” according to Dhillon Law Group. In 2018, although the case would go into arbitration – that is there was no courtroom win – Dhillon’s firm would fight against alleged political, racial, and gendered bias at Google. As recent as 2025, Dhillon’s non-profit (the Center for American Liberty) helped win a First Circuit ruling that vacated a lower court’s refusal to block a “buffer zone” around a Massachusetts courthouse. They argued it was not a narrowly tailored means in which any sort of safety or order was being prioritized, but rather an attempt to disperse protests to the respective judicial ruling.

Coming from a Sikh background herself, Dhillon has spent her career being a staunch advocate for religious freedom. After the nation was shocked by 9/11, amidst the chaos, Dhillon joined the Sikh Foundation as a trustee and formed the Sikh Communication Council. She worked to defend turban-wearing Sikhs – mistaken for Middle Eastern jihadists – from the FBI, Law Enforcement agencies, and the average American. She also fought against the unnecessary and embarrassing removal of turbans at federal security checkpoints. She even met personally with the U.S. Department of Transportation secretary who would go on to clarify D.O.T. policy in a memo titled “Guidance for Screeners and Other Security personnel.” This confirmed that airport security shall not profile and shall not require turban removal without cause and are to use alternatives like wanding, pat-downs, and, if necessary, require private screening. 

After 9-11, from 2003-2005, she was prompted to join the ACLU of Northern California as a governing director and executive committee member. Specifically, she joined to oppose the USA PATRIOT Act, challenging the “No-Fly” list policies that infringed upon due process. The ACLU of Northern California, during Dhillon’s time as a director, also filed Freedom of Information Act requests to expose FBI infiltration of peaceful anti-war groups, after finding out that an undercover agent had joined a local peace organization in Fresno. She would subsequently go on to be awarded the Minority Bar Council of Northern California’s Outstanding Community Service Award for such post 9/11 work.

Her career in religious advocacy is not confined to legal responses to 9/11. In 2011, her firm fought on behalf of a prison-guard denied his position for refusing to shave his beard (due to religious reasons). They would go on to win the case. Although they did not win, her firm, too, fought on behalf of a couple ejected from AMC for wearing Kirpans, or, small spiritual sword that baptized Sikhs are required to wear. To recognize her for her efforts, in 2013, she was awarded the Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund’s Public Service Award.

Dhillon has also worked to promote the dignity of other marginalized groups. Being a survivor of domestic abuse herself, Dhillon worked as a director for the Support Network for Battered Women in Santa Clara County from 2001 to 2003. The organization, now part of YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley, works to provide justice, healing, and even housing for those affected by domestic violence. She, too, has indirectly shown that minorities and even immigrants such as herself are just as capable of representing the Republican party (not in the name of any sort of DEI, but merit). In 2013, she would be elected Vice Chair of the California GOP. In 2016, she would be become California’s National Committeewoman to the RNC.

Furthermore, Dhillon is an accomplished advocate in the fields of employment law, internet law, and data privacy. As it specifically relates to employment law, through her firm, she has represented clients in cases involving workplace discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment – often standing up for individuals facing abuse or misconduct. One notable example includes a pro bono case in which Dhillon defended a young woman who was sued for defamation after reporting sexual harassment at her school. Dhillon successfully argued an anti-SLAPP motion, protecting her client’s right to speak out, ultimately setting an important precedent for safeguarding participants in Title IX proceedings. 

In recent history, Dhillon’s firm (Dhillon Law Group), often in conjunction with her Center for American Liberty, fought against California’s destructive COVID lockdown policies, securing various wins and applying pressure for Newsom and the state to reverse many of their policies. Dhillon Law Group and the Center for American Liberty were able to secure a total of three separate U.S. Supreme Court wins (based on California’s religious liberty violations alone). The Dartmouth claimed that “[d]uring the COVID-19 pandemic, the firm [Dhillon Law Group] filed multiple lawsuits against the state of California’s decision to postpone reopening after a spike in COVID-19 cases.” Of course, this is poor media framing at its finest. What this really means is that the Dhillon, her firm, and her nonprofit objected to the forced closure of beauty salons, private schools, bars, and restaurants (not to mention the closure of religious establishments and shutdowns of in-home religious gatherings). This is all while the arbitrary label of “essential” allowed liquor stores and even massage parlors to remain open, while worship and religious institutions were treated as secondary.

Lastly, Dhillon’s Center for American Liberty has not only worked to protect free speech and religious liberty (in and out of the context of Covid) but has done a great job in defending parental rights. Its largest impact has come, particularly, with transgender issues. This has even included representing notable activist Chloe Cole in her fight against irreversible and irresponsible gender-affirming care for minors.

Currently serving as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, Dhillon has worked to promote many of the civil rights that were largely ignored under the Biden Administration. This begins with investigating universities that appear to have failed to confront antisemitism on campus (particularly during the spring of 2024 wave of anti-Israeli protests). First and foremost, upon her arrival, Dhillon employed a DOJ task force to combat antisemitism. The DOJ has found various universities in violation of Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Investigations have revealed a hostile environment within the University of California system, with UCLA having shown a deliberate indifference to antisemitic harassment. George Washington University was also found in violation due to discriminatory actions. Our partner elite-institutions like Columbia and Harvard have faced significant scrutiny by the administration, resulting in sweeping administrative changes, staff cuts, and both partial and complete reversals of previous positions, signaling a clear message from Dhillon and the DOJ. Other investigations are ongoing.

For AAG Dhillon, when I asked her, the goal of combatting antisemitism is not to “paint the picture that every institution in America is bad.” Dartmouth, is, in fact, among the “good guys” that have taken concrete actions to make our community feel welcoming toward Jewish students. She praised our school’s time, place, and manner restrictions, designed so that “everyone [gets] their voice heard, but [does not] get to interfere with others’ educational accomplishments.” She, too, thinks the school’s “development of a curriculum that has Middle Eastern studies and Jewish studies professors teaching together” is a “novel” idea. Lastly, it is “very impressive” to her that Jewish student applications were up by “two hundred percent” after Dartmouth’s leadership during the tumultuous time that was the 2023-2024 school year.

Among the top priorities of the administration has also been the objective of protecting biological women from Title IX violations. This has included a move to reaffirm that the law’s promise of equal opportunity in education includes fair competition, equal access to facilities, and safety for female athletes. This includes a lawsuit against California for allowing transgender male athletes in high school sports. The DOJ has also opened probes and given warnings across the country to states and districts that have failed to maintain sex-separated locker rooms and other intimate spaces.

As it relates to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, in July 2025, the DOJ issued “Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination,” flagging race-based scholarships or programs, preferential hiring or promotion practices, and access to facilities based on race or ethnicity as unlawful. As The Dartmouth states, “Today, Dhillon’s division of the Department of Justice is working to roll back diversity and equity initiatives in public universities and agencies. Under her leadership, the division pressured University of Virginia president James E. Ryan to resign over the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts; Ryan later resigned. Her division also opened an investigation into the University of California system over its focus on hiring ‘diverse’ faculty members.” “Diverse,” of course, referring to preferential hiring based on race. 

Dhillon’s Civil Rights Department also persuaded a D.C. court to end the 1981 Luévano decree, a court-imposed set of hiring constraints on the federal government that sought to limit racial disparities in entry-level hiring. The deal in 1981 scrapped the federal government’s main entry-level hiring test and imposed court-ordered limits on using different exams for many starter jobs. With the Luévano decree gone, agencies are once again allowed to design and use merit-based assessments (tests, work samples, and structured interviews). The D.C. judge responsible for approving the dismissal of the 1981 decree remarks that “competence and merit are the standards by which we should all be judged; nothing more and nothing less.” This has been a core theme of Dhillon’s Civil Rights Department.

Separately, the division has opened and pursued DOJ civil-rights investigations where public employers or universities have used race-conscious criteria in hiring or program access. Under the new administration, using terms like “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” does not excuse racial discrimination. After I inquired about her work against DEI in higher-education, Dhillon critiqued universities that have instituted “no go zones for Jews and for whites” and that practice discriminatory hiring in the name of DEI: “It used to be the case that you were worried about getting tenure… people are not even getting hired now if they’re the wrong race. They’re disqualified. Searches are explicitly geared, which is illegal… to the exclusion of merit.”

Lastly, rather than consider Dhillon a mere “Trump loyalist” or “election-denier,” it is important to understand that ensuring voter confidence and securing electoral processes are not topics worth dismissing. Unlike the media tends to claim, the DOJ’s goal has not been to deny voting. As Dhillon reiterated, her department has prioritized “one person, one vote, fairly drawn districts, and public confidence in the outcome of elections, which, in turn, includes citizens being able to witness the voting process and audit the procedures.” Promoting transparency and fixing errors in voter administration has been central to voter confidence and election integrity.

For example, in the 2024 election (which Trump won) there were still a handful of issues among a multitude of states. According to Dhillon, “there was almost no signature verification in Nevada…Wisconsin had laws against absentee ballots, unless you were a sick person or a person in a nursing home; they did not enforce that rule. Michigan… has laws that require witnesses to be able to view the voting process. They put paper and cardboard over the windows to block that access. In Pennsylvania, law partners of mine went there as volunteers to witness the election… [they] were kept a football field away, unable to review the data. No one was allowed to ask questions about ballots showing up in trucks… or the verification of that. In Arizona, where I was on the ground in 2022 and 2024, they had massive problems in just the operation of the equipment on print on demand ballots.” She also describes the “loophole” of how “there’s almost no safeguards applied by the states when people claim they resided in that state before they moved abroad [military and non-military voters]. There’s no verification of that.” As a result, “when you have all these [scenarios], they add up to people not believing the outcome, particularly where the entire election in 2020 was 60 or 70,000 votes difference… in a few counties.” In a democracy, voter confidence is essential, and Dhillon has made this a clear top priority within her Civil Rights Division.

After interviewing Ms. Dhillon and doing proper research on her background, it is clear that she is well-deserving of her position as this nation’s Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights. Above all, she prioritizes equal treatment under law. This includes a return to merit-based hiring, civil-rights enforcement against race-exclusive programs, the protection of women’s sports and intimate spaces, and consequences for universities that fail to properly combat antisemitic violence and intimidation. We at The Review are flattered that The Dartmouth thinks the best way to cover the current Assistant Attorney General is to devote nearly an entire article to her four college years as one of our editors. However, what matters more than The Dartmouth Review are the interpretations of federal law that actively affect millions of Americans. It’s best to judge an accomplished attorney by the cases filed and the results achieved, not by nostalgic trips to the ‘80s.